From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Claim of Somers v. Demco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 9, 2006
26 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

98215.

February 9, 2006.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 30, 2004, which found that the claim for reimbursement out of the Special Disability Fund was timely filed.

Steven Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee, Albany (Melissa A. Day of counsel), for appellant.

Douglas J. Hayden, State Insurance Fund, Buffalo (Thomas P. Etzel of counsel), for State Insurance Fund, respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.


In December 1996, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits based upon a work-related injury that he sustained to his neck. The claim was closed in April 1999 without a finding of permanency. Approximately one year later, in May 2000, the case was administratively reopened and a hearing was scheduled to consider the issue of further causally related lost time. Thereafter, in November 2000, the employer's workers' compensation carrier filed a C-250 claim seeking reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. Ultimately, following various interim hearings and appeals, a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board found that the carrier's C-250 claim was filed in a timely manner, prompting this appeal by the Special Disability Fund.

We affirm. Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f) provides, in relevant part, that: "if such employer or insurance carrier be entitled to reimbursement as provided in this subdivision, notice or claim of the right to such reimbursement shall be filed with the board in writing prior to the final determination that the resulting disability is permanent, but in no case more than [104] weeks after the date of disability or death or [52] weeks after the date that a claim for compensation is filed with the chair, whichever is later, or in the event of the reopening of a case theretofore closed, no later than the determination of permanency upon such reopening" (emphasis added). Here, the Board interpreted the final clause of Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f) as being independent of the preceding clauses thereof and, hence, determined that the 104-week limitation did not apply where, as here, the case previously was closed without a finding of permanency. Although the Special Disability Fund argues that the Board's interpretation "arbitrarily revives the time in which the employer has to file its C-250 by permitting it to do after a closing that which it could not do before," the Special Disability Fund's interpretation ignores the plain wording of the statute.

Even a cursory review of the relevant portion of Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f) plainly reveals that the statute is phrased in the disjunctive, thereby establishing an "exclusive" procedure for the filing of a C-250 in reopened cases ( Matter of Burch v. Hawkins, 9 AD2d 6, 8; see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 235, at 401 ["(u)se of the conjunction `or' in a statute usually indicates that the language is to be construed in an alternative sense"]). Thus where, as here, there was a true closing of the case, the carrier's C-250 claim for reimbursement, filed after the reopening and prior to the determination of permanency, is timely ( see Matter of Burch v. Hawkins, supra at 8; compare Matter of McCowen v. St. Johnsbury Trucking, 225 AD2d 859, 860 [no true closing]).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Claim of Somers v. Demco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 9, 2006
26 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In the Matter of Claim of Somers v. Demco

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of THOMAS SOMERS, Respondent, v. DEMCO et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 9, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1069
809 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Metal Cladding, Inc.

The Fund appeals. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the carrier's application for reimbursement was…

In re Copak v. Our Lady of Victory

Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f), a claim for reimbursement from the Fund "shall be filed…